Articles Posted in Confrontation Clause

Published on:

482515106-300x200A very strange and appalling case out of a Fort Worth, Texas district court has made national news, but this time its not for the actions of the defendant. Judge George Gallagher from Tarrant County, Texas, ordered his bailiff to electrocute Terry Lee Morris with a stun belt when he would not directly answer the judge’s questions. The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that the stun belt “delivers a 50,000 volt electrical shock to the wearer when activated.” Chavez v. Cocktrell, 310 F.3d 805, 807 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002). Morris was ultimately shocked three times.

Morris, who was on trial for soliciting sexual performance from a minor, was trying to object with the court proceeding with the trial and would not answer the judge’s questions directly. Morris was complaining that he had a pending lawsuit against the judge and his defense counsel in the case.

Gallagher ordered his bailiff to shock Morris. After the first shock, this exchange followed:

Published on:

Arguments at the United States Supreme Court continued on December 6, 2011, as the justices heard oral arguments for the case of Sandy Williams, Petitioner v. Illinois Docket (#10-8505).

This is a case that pertains to the Sixth Amendment – specially the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The Sixth Amendment states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” The Confrontation Clause deals with the phrase “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In other words, a person who is on trial has the right to see the witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against them and they have the right to cross-exam the witnesses during the trial. (Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation apply to the states and not just the federal government. The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.)

In this particular case, a DNA report was prepared by a third party, private lab. During the trial, the actual report was not admitted and none of the lab analysts who conducted the tests ever testified. Instead, an Illinois State Police forensic analyst was called to testify. This expert was never involved with nor observed the actual tests, and therefore had no knowledge of the methods used to obtain the results.
Continue reading